1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Corpus Methods for Semantics
  4. Chapter

Collostructional analysis

Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements

image of Collostructional analysis

This chapter offers a practical introduction to a set of corpus-linguistic analytical methods that are referred to collectively as ‘collostructional analysis’. The overarching aim in conducting a collostructional analysis is to find out which lexical items form collocations with a given grammatical construction. The purpose of such an undertaking, in the context of this book, is to facilitate the semantic analysis of grammatical constructions. The chapter discusses several case studies in order to show that the semantic description of grammatical constructions benefits from a quantitative analysis of the lexical material that occurs with the respective constructions. A final discussion surveys advantages and pitfalls of collostructional methods.

  • Affiliations: 1: Université de Neuchâtel

References

  1. Bybee, J.L
    (2010)  Language, usage and cognition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  2. Davies, M
    (2004)  BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus . Available viacorpus.byu.edu/bnc.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995)  Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Gries, St. Th
    (2004) Coll.analysis 3. A program for R for Windows 2.x.
  5. (2012) Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language , 36(3), 477–510. doi: 10.1075/sl.36.3.02gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.02gri [Google Scholar]
  6. Gries, St. Th. , & Stefanowitsch, A
    (2004a) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 9(1), 97–129. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  7. (2004b) Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard , & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp.225–36). Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hilpert, M
    (2006) Distinctive collexemes and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 2(2), 243–56. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2006.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2012) Diachronic collostructional analysis. How to use it, and how to deal with confounding factors. In J. Robinson , & K. Allan (Eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp.133–160). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Kaltenböck, G
    (2005) It-extraposition in English: A functional view. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 10(2), 119–159. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.10.2.02kal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.2.02kal [Google Scholar]
  11. Schmid, H.-J
    (2000)  English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition . 
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110808704
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  12. Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, St. Th
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 8(2), 209–243. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  13. (2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 1(1), 1–43. doi: 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Wulff, S. , Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, St. Th
    (2007) Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In G. Radden , K.-M. Köpcke , T. Berg , & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.265–281). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.136.17wul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.17wul [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Bybee, J.L
    (2010)  Language, usage and cognition . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  2. Davies, M
    (2004)  BYU-BNC: The British National Corpus . Available viacorpus.byu.edu/bnc.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Goldberg, A.E
    (1995)  Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Gries, St. Th
    (2004) Coll.analysis 3. A program for R for Windows 2.x.
  5. (2012) Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language , 36(3), 477–510. doi: 10.1075/sl.36.3.02gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.36.3.02gri [Google Scholar]
  6. Gries, St. Th. , & Stefanowitsch, A
    (2004a) Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 9(1), 97–129. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  7. (2004b) Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative. In M. Achard , & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture, and mind (pp.225–36). Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hilpert, M
    (2006) Distinctive collexemes and diachrony. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 2(2), 243–56. doi: 10.1515/CLLT.2006.012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.012 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2012) Diachronic collostructional analysis. How to use it, and how to deal with confounding factors. In J. Robinson , & K. Allan (Eds.), Current methods in historical semantics (pp.133–160). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Kaltenböck, G
    (2005) It-extraposition in English: A functional view. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 10(2), 119–159. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.10.2.02kal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.2.02kal [Google Scholar]
  11. Schmid, H.-J
    (2000)  English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition . 
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110808704
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
  12. Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, St. Th
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 8(2), 209–243. doi: 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  13. (2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory , 1(1), 1–43. doi: 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1 [Google Scholar]
  14. Wulff, S. , Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, St. Th
    (2007) Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In G. Radden , K.-M. Köpcke , T. Berg , & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of meaning construction (pp.265–281). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.136.17wul
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.136.17wul [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027270337-hcp.43.15hil
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027270337-hcp.43.15hil
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027270337
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error